Rajeev Aggarwal, Solan V. ITO, Solan

ITA 1191/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3807 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1191/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL, VS THE ITO, PLOT NO. 191-B, HPSIDC, WARD 1, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BADDI, SOLAN (HP). DISTT. SOLAN (HP). PAN: AARPA0814H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.12.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) SHIMLA DATED 19.09.2016 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING O FFICER IN RESTRICTING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IC OF INC OME TAX ACT @ 25% AS AGAINST 100% CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE STARTED ITS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY/OPERATION ON 15.10.2005 AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 80IC OF THE ACT WAS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 . THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 80IC 2 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF 100% OF THE ELIGIBLE PR OFIT FOR FIVE YEARS PERIOD STARTING FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSES SEE FIRM HAD AGAIN CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION AGAINST ELIGI BLE PROFITS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL WHICH IS SI XTH YEAR OF PRODUCTION FOR THE FIRM BY CLAIMING TO HAVE CARR IED OUT SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECORDING DETAILED REASONS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 IC OF THE ACT ONLY @ 25% AS AGAINST CLAIM OF 100% MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS A LREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN T HE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS VS ITO ( REPORTED IN 41 ITR (CHD) 486 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO ONLY 25% OF THE DEDUCTION DURING THE PRESENT YEA R BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY AVAILED THE PERIOD OF FULL DEDUCTION @ 100% IN EARLIER FIVE YEARS I.E. FROM AS SESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2008-09. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REPRODUCED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNM ENT WHICH WAS OBJECTED TO BY LD. DR MAKING SUBMISSION T HAT ISSUE IS COVERED BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). IN THIS VI EW OF THE MATTER, THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS REJECTED. IT IS ADMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST 3 THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN T HE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUPRA). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISMISSING THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. NO INFIRMITY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S HYCRON ELECTRONICS (SUP RA). 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 20 TH DECEMBER,2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH